Failure to comply with court orders triggers contempt proceedings, regardless of any pending appeals against such orders or administrative hurdles.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.

PRELIMINARY:

After some arguments, at the outset, Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel, sought permission to be discharged from the matter. Permission granted; the learned senior counsel is discharged from representing the alleged contemnors.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the alleged contemnors, who are present-in-person before the Court, pursuant to our Order dated 16.01.2026, which reads as under:

‘Issue notice.

2. List on 24.02.2026.

3. If by that date the order of which non-compliance has been alleged is not fully complied and affidavit of compliance filed, the alleged contemnors no. 1 to 4 shall remain physically present in Court.’

(emphasis supplied)

THE CONTEMPT:

3. Though an Affidavit-in-Reply stands filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.4, but on a perusal therefrom, we find that only excuses seem to have been offered. The said Affidavit, inter alia, contends ‘…the answering respondent has taken several steps and efforts to try and comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court. However, due to exigent circumstances, compliance of the same has not taken place due to administrative hurdles and issues in implementation that have arisen.’ It goes on to state the background which led to the passing of the Order dated 20.05.2025, of which contempt is alleged herein, in Civil Appeals No.7023/2025 and 7024/2025. Further, it is averred that the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MD’) wrote a Letter dated 22.07.2025 to the concerned Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Government’) for ‘guidance in relation to compliance’ of the Order dated 22.05.2025. Be it noted, even this Letter dated 22.07.2025 was written after over 2 months of the 3 months’ time given had elapsed. The concerned Under Secretary to the Government vide Letter dated 30.07.2025 then sought certain information/documents from the MD. It is urged that the MD provided information as sought to the Government. The MD later, on 26.09.2025, sent a Letter to the Government as a reminder on the issue. On 03.10.2025, the Government wrote back to the MD asking if all legal options had been exhausted against the Order dated 20.05.2025.

4. Clearly, while time to comply with Order dated 20.05.2025 ran out on 20.08.2025 itself, the MD’s reminder Letter dated 26.09.2025 as also the Government’s Letter dated 03.10.2025 came much after. Indubitably, and prima facie, a clear case of contempt stands made out, including against individuals not party to the Order dated 20.05.2025. We shall deal with the legal implication of our finding so a little later.

5. Blissfully, the Affidavit makes no reference as to why no Miscellaneous Application was preferred in the main Civil Appeals seeking appropriate directions. Surely, if the difficulty was in implementing the Order dated 20.05.2025, instead of seeking a review, directions could have been sought for? Instead, a Review Petition [Diary No.57124/2025] was filed in October, 2025, as informed by learned counsel for the alleged contemnors. Defects therein, notified in November, 2025 are yet to be cured. As such, it is clear that there was no real intent on the part of the alleged contemnors and others in default of the Order dated 20.05.2025 to have the same either modified, clarified or reviewed. These facts speak for themselves. But then again, perhaps it is only us who are to be blamed. Giving parties a